Photo from Unsplash | Alexander Sinn
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
The Supreme Court decides: “The voluntary intimacy between two unmarried adults, where both are not under any impediment to marry, where no deceit exists, and which was done in complete privacy, is neither criminal nor so unprincipled as to warrant disciplinary action.”
(A case on termination of an employee due to gross immorality)
AT A GLANCE
-
The standard of morality with which an act should be gauged is public and secular, not religious.
-
To determine whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral, a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and an assessment of the said circumstances vis-a-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, that is, what the society generally considers moral and respectable, are necessary.
-
Whether a conduct is considered disgraceful or immoral should be made in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct.
An employee’s right to security of tenure is guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution and other laws and regulations. No employee shall be terminated from work except for just or authorized cause and upon observance of due process.
The law says:
“Article 294. Security of Tenure. – In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not be terminated the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.” (Article 294, Labor Code of the Philippines)
To what extent does an employee’s immoral acts or conduct justify his termination?
If an employee is found to have committed an act which may be considered to be grossly immoral and, thus, prejudicial to the interests of the employer, jurisprudence dictates that the totality of circumstances surrounding the alleged immoral conduct shall be view in relation to the conducts generally accepted by society as “moral” or “respectable”.
In the case of Zaida Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc. (G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016) where two employees of the foundation became romantically involved with each other despite a company policy discouraging consensual romantic or sexual relationship with any employee or volunteer, the foundation terminated her for “immorality, gross misconduct and violation of St. Vincent’s Code of Conduct.” The Supreme Court ruled that the couple’s relationship was not an act per se prejudicial to the interests of the employer foundation.
Jurisprudence says:
“Immorality pertains to a course of conduct that offends the morals of the community. It connotes conduct or acts that are willful, flagrant or shameless, and that shows indifference to the moral standards of the upright and respectable members of the community.
Conducts described as immoral or disgraceful refer to those acts that plainly contradict accepted standards of right and wrong behavior; they are prohibited because they are detrimental to the conditions on which depend the existence and progress of human society.
Notwithstanding this characterization, the term “immorality” still often escapes precise definition; the determination of whether it exists or has taken place depends on the attendant circumstances, prevailing norms of conduct, and applicable laws.
In other words, it is the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct per se as viewed in relation with the conduct generally accepted by society as respectable or moral, which determines whether the conduct is disgraceful or immoral.
The determination of whether a particular conduct is immoral involves: (1) a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and (2) an assessment of these circumstances in the light of the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable, and of the applicable laws.
In determining whether the acts complained of constitute “disgraceful and immoral” behavior under the Civil Service Laws, the distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other hand, should be kept in mind. This distinction as expressed – albeit not exclusively – in the law, on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is important because the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality.” (Zaida Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016)
Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled in the same case that:
“Mere private sexual relations between two unmarried and consenting adults, even if the relations result in pregnancy or miscarriage out of wedlock and without more, are not enough to warrant liability for illicit behavior. The voluntary intimacy between two unmarried adults, where both are not under any impediment to marry, where no deceit exists, and which was done in complete privacy, is neither criminal nor so unprincipled as to warrant disciplinary action.” (Zaida Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016)
In the case of Union School International v. Charley Jane Dagdag (G.R. No. 234186, November 21, 2018) where a grade school teacher got pregnant with a man who was marrying another woman, the employer school charged her with gross immorality and was forced to resign. The Supreme Court ruled that the teacher was constructively dismissed.
Jurisprudence says:
“To determine whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral, a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and an assessment of the said circumstances vis-a-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable, are necessary.
Jurisprudence has already set the standard of morality with which an act should be gauged — it is public and secular, not religious. Whether a conduct is considered disgraceful or immoral should be made in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct, which refer to those conducts which are proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society. The fact that a particular act does not conform to the traditional moral views of a certain sectarian institution is not sufficient reason to qualify such act as immoral unless it, likewise, does not conform to public and secular standards. More importantly, there must be substantial evidence to establish that premarital sexual relations and pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral. (Union School International v. Charley Jane Dagdag, G.R. No. 234186, November 21, 2018)
The Court further ruled that there being no legal impediment to marry between the teacher and the father of her child, the totality of evidence does not justify her dismissal from employment. Moreover, as held in a line of cases:
“Pregnancy of a school teacher out of wedlock is not a just cause for termination of an employment absent any showing that the pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, are indeed considered disgraceful or immoral.” (Union School International v. Charley Jane Dagdag, G.R. No. 234186, November 21, 2018)
Lastly, “grossly immoral conduct must be an act that is “so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. There is no fixed formula to define what constitutes grossly immoral conduct. The determination depends on the circumstances.” (Rene Hierro v. Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II, A.C. No. 9459, January 07, 2020)
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.